Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 36585

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

If the conditional approval is

converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the State’s

failure to meet the commitment, it will

not affect any existing state

requirements applicable to small

entities. Federal disapproval of the state

submittal does not affect its stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose a new Federal requirement.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this

disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not remove existing requirements nor

does it substitute a new federal

requirement.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule. EPA has

determined that the approval action

promulgated does not include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs of $100 million or more to either

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This

Federal action approves pre-existing

requirements under State or local law,

and imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by September 8,

1998. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action regarding

approval of the District of Columbia’s

15% plan SIP revision may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Ozone.

Dated: June 23, 1998.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52, subpart J of chapter

I, title 40 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart J—District of Columbia

2. Section 52.473 is amended by

designating the existing paragraph as (a)

and adding paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

§ 52.473 Conditional Approval.

* * * * *

(b) EPA is conditionally approving as

a revision to the District of Columbia

State Implementation Plan the 15

Percent Rate of Progress Plan for the

District of Columbia’s portion of the

Metropolitan Washington, D.C. ozone

nonattainment area, submitted by the

Director of the District of Columbia

Department of Public Health on April

16, 1998. EPA’s approval is conditioned

upon the District meeting the April 30,

1999 start date committed to and

contained in its November 27, 1997

enhanced I/M SIP revision submittal.

The conversion from conditional

approval to full approval or to

disapproval will be dependent upon

whether or not the District meets the

start date of April 30, 1999 committed

to in the enhanced I/M SIP revision. If

the District starts the enhanced testing

program on or before April 30, 1999,

then any final conditional approval

shall convert to a full approval of the

SIP revision. If the District fails to fully

implement enhanced I/M testing in the

District by April 30, 1999, EPA would

notify the District by letter that the

condition has not been met and that this

final conditional approval has converted

to a disapproval, and the clock for

imposition of sanctions under section

179(a) of the Act would start as of the

date of the letter. Subsequently, a notice

would be published in the Federal

Register announcing that the 15% plan

SIP revision has been disapproved.

[FR Doc. 98–17966 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH115–2; FRL–6120–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) is finalizing a May 21, 1998,

proposal to approve an Ohio State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to

remove the air quality triggers from each

of the following Ohio maintenance area

contingency plans: Canton (Stark

County), Cleveland (Lorain, Cuyahoga,

Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina,

Summit and Portage Counties),

Columbus (Franklin, Delaware and

Licking Counties), Steubenville

(Jefferson County), Toledo (Lucas and

Wood Counties), Youngstown

(Mahoning and Trumbull Counties) as

well as Clinton County, Columbiana

County and Preble County.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be

effective on July 7, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location:
36586 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois, 60604. Please contact

Scott Hamilton at (312) 353–4775 before

visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Hamilton, Environmental

Scientist, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On May 21, 1998, USEPA published

a proposed rule proposing to approve an

April 27, 1998, request from Ohio to

remove the air quality triggers from

contingency plans in the Ohio areas

subject to the first round of one hour

ozone standard revocations. The areas

subject to the first round of revocations

attained the one hour ozone standard

based on air monitoring data from 1994–

1996. The May 21, 1998, proposal

solicited written comments from May

21, 1998 to June 22, 1998. No comments

were received regarding this proposal.

On June 5, 1998, a final rulemaking

was published revoking the one hour

ozone standard for the following Ohio

maintenance areas (63 FR 31013):

Canton (Stark County), Cleveland

(Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake, Ashtabula,

Geauga, Medina, Summit and Portage

Counties), Columbus (Franklin,

Delaware and Licking Counties),

Steubenville (Jefferson County), Toledo

(Lucas and Wood Counties),

Youngstown (Mahoning and Trumbull

Counties) as well as Clinton County,

Columbiana County and Preble County.

II. Response to Public Comments

The public comment period on

USEPA’s proposal to approve Ohio’s

request ended on June 22, 1998. No

public comments were received on

USEPA’s proposed approval.

III. USEPA Final Action

USEPA is approving in final the

maintenance plan revisions to remove

the air quality triggers in the Ohio ozone

maintenance areas listed in the

Summary section of this document.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Procedure Act

This action will be effective

immediately upon publication in the

Federal Register pursuant to the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(1) and (3) (APA) for good cause.

A delayed effective date is unnecessary

due to the nature of this action, which

removes certain SIP measures related to

the 1-hour ozone standard, which has

been revoked. The thirty day delay of

the effective date of this action generally

required by the Administrative

Procedure Act is unwarranted in that it

does not serve the public interest to

unnecessarily delay the effective date of

this action.

V. Administrative Requirements

(A) Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

(B) Executive Order 13045

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045, titled ‘‘Protection of

Children’s Health from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks,’’ because

it is not an ‘‘economically significant’’

action under Executive Order 12866.

(C) Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to

base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

(D) Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA

must undertake various actions in

association with any proposed or final

rule that includes a Federal mandate

that may result in estimated costs to

state, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. This Federal

action approves the removal of preexisting requirements under state or

local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or the private sector,

result from this action.

(E) Audit Privilege and Immunity Law

Nothing in this action should be

construed as making any determination

or expressing any position regarding

Ohio’s audit privilege and immunity

law (sections 3745.70—3745.73 of the

Ohio Revised Code). USEPA will be

reviewing the effect of the Ohio audit

privilege and immunity law on various

Ohio environmental programs,

including those under the Clean Air

Act, and taking appropriate action(s), if

any, after thorough analysis and

opportunity for Ohio to state and

explain its views and positions on the

issues raised by the law. The action

taken herein does not express or imply

any viewpoint on the question of

whether there are legal deficiencies in

this or any Ohio Clean Air Act program

resulting from the effect of the audit

privilege and immunity law. As a

consequence of the review process, the

regulations subject to the action taken

herein may be disapproved, federal

approval for the Clean Air Act program

under which they are implemented may

be withdrawn, or other appropriate

action may be taken, as necessary.

(F) Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. USEPA will submit

a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 36587

(G) Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by September 8,

1998. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2)).

VI. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Nitrogen oxides, Implementation plans.

Dated: June 25, 1998.

William E. Muno,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.

Subpart KK—Ohio

2. Section 52.1885 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1885 Control Strategy: Ozone

(a) * * *

(8) Approval—On April 27, 1998,

Ohio submitted a revision to remove the

air quality triggers from the ozone

maintenance plans for the following

areas in Ohio: Canton (Stark County),

Cleveland (Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake,

Ashtabula, Geauga, Medina, Summit

and Portage Counties), Columbus

(Franklin, Delaware and Licking

Counties), Steubenville (Jefferson

County), Toledo (Lucas and Wood

Counties), Youngstown (Mahoning and

Trumbull Counties) as well as Clinton

County, Columbiana County, and Preble

County.

[FR Doc. 98–17972 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6119–9]

Washington: Final Authorization of

State Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: Washington has applied for

Final authorization of a revision to its

hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). The EPA has reviewed

Washington’s application and

determined that its hazardous waste

program revision satisfies all of the

requirements necessary to qualify for

Final authorization. Unless adverse

written comments are received during

the review and comment period

provided in this direct final rule, EPA’s

decision to approve Washington’s

hazardous waste program revision will

take effect as provided below.

Washington’s application for program

revision is available for public review

and comment.

DATES: This Final authorization for

Washington shall be effective October 5,

1998, if EPA receives no adverse

comment on this document by August 6,

1998. Should EPA receive adverse

comments, EPA will withdraw this rule

before the effective date by publishing a

notice of withdrawal in the Federal

Register. Any comments on

Washington’s program revision

application must be filed by August 6,

1998. Written comments may also be

provided to the address below by

August 6, 1998. If no adverse comments

are received by August 6, 1998, the

immediate final rule will take effect and

no further action will be taken on the

companion proposal, which appears in

the proposed rules section elsewhere in

this issue of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Washington

program revision application and the

materials which EPA used in evaluating

the revision are available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours at the following addresses: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, WA 98101, contact at (206) 553–

1259; and the Washington Department

of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey,

WA 98503, contact Patricia Hervieux,

(360) 407–6756. Written comments

should be sent to Nina Kocourek, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, WCM–122, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–

6502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nina Kocourek, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200

Sixth Avenue, WCM–122, Seattle, WA

98101, (206) 553–6502.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

States with final authorization under

section 3006(b) of the RCRA 42 U.S.C.

6926(b), have a continuing obligation to

maintain a hazardous waste program

that is equivalent to, consistent with,

and no less stringent than the Federal

hazardous waste program.

Revisions to State hazardous waste

programs are necessary when Federal or

State statutory or regulatory authority is

modified or when certain other changes

occur. Most commonly, State program

revisions are necessitated by changes to

EPA’s regulations in Title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

The revision requested by Washington

in its current application is not a result

of a change to EPA’s rules or

regulations, nor is it a result of changes

to Washington’s rules and regulations.

Washington’s application for revision

results from unique agreements between

Washington, the United States and the

Puyallup Tribe of Indians. Washington

seeks revision of its authorized program

to include ‘‘non-trust lands’’ within the

exterior boundaries of the Puyallup

Indian reservation (hereafter referred to

as the ‘‘1873 Survey Area’’ or ‘‘Survey

Area’’) pursuant to a settlement

agreement finalized in 1988 and ratified

by Congress in 1989, which allows

Washington to seek authorization for

such lands after consultation and

communication with the Puyallup

Tribe.

B. Washington

The State of Washington initially

received Final Authorization on January

30, 1986 (51 FR 3782), effective January

31, 1986 (51 FR 3782), to implement its

base hazardous waste management

program. Washington received

authorization for revisions to its

program on November 23, 1987 (52 FR

35556, 9/22/87), October 16, 1990 (55

FR 33695, 8/17/90), November 4, 1994

(59 FR 55322, 11/4/94), and April 29,

1996 (41 FR 7736, 2/29/96)

On June 16, 1998, Washington

submitted a final complete program

application to revise its program to

include non-trust lands within the 1873

Survey Area of the Puyallup Tribe

reservation. Today, Washington is